Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI, told House lawmakers during a closed-door interview in late 2017 that other than the probe into Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server, he was not aware of any instance in which an FBI exoneration statement was drafted months prior to the conclusion of an investigation.

“This is the only time that I am aware of, sir,” McCabe told a lawmaker, who asked him if it was “common practice” to lay out an exoneration statement two months prior to concluding an investigation, according to a transcript obtained by The Epoch Times.

Then-FBI Director James Comey had circulated a draft exoneration in May 2016—two months prior to concluding the investigation.

Representatives and staff from the House judiciary and oversight committees grilled McCabe during an 8-hour session on Dec. 21, 2017. Two days later, McCabe announced his retirement. McCabe was forced to resign from his active position on Jan. 29, 2018, and on March 16, 2018, the day before McCabe was to retire with a full pension, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired him for lying to investigators about self-serving leaks to the media.

The judiciary and oversight committees wrapped up a year-long investigation last month after interviewing more than 20 witnesses, including McCabe, Comey, and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The lawmakers concluded that the Obama Justice Department treated Clinton and then-candidate Trump unequally in 2016. While the DOJ appears to have abused foreign intelligence surveillance powers to target a Trump presidential campaign associate, its investigation of Clinton “was over before it began,” a summary released by the House Judiciary Committee states.

‘Grossly Negligent’
Comey drafted the statement to exonerate Clinton two months prior to concluding the investigation and before interviewing more than a dozen key witnesses, including Clinton herself. Among other issues, the draft was edited to remove all mentions of “gross negligence,” a statutory term in the criminal code.

McCabe said he played a marginal role in editing Comey’s draft statement and does not remember having any discussions about the removal of “gross negligence” from the text. In one line of questioning, lawmakers showed that McCabe remembered discussions regarding another edit to the same draft, but not any conversations about the “gross negligence” aspect.

Rep.: “So you mention that you didn’t talk to anybody about the ‘extremely careless’ and ‘grossly negligent,’ but you did go and talk about the cyber side of that. So why would you talk to cyber experts about the changes there … and not the ‘extremely careless’ to ‘grossly negligent’? Why do you recall one and not the other?”

McCabe: “To be clear, I did not say that I did not discuss this with Director Comey. I participated in many discussions about many things…”

Rep.: “So you did discuss it?”

McCabe: “I don’t have a clear recollection of discussing…”

Rep.: “Okay. Do you have any recollection of discussing it?”

McCabe: “That edit?”

Rep.: “Grossly negligent [and] extremely careless. Any recollection?”

McCabe: “I do not. I do not.”

McCabe claimed to not remember or recall certain events or matters more than two dozen times during the interview.

Tensions With the DOJ
McCabe detailed tensions between the FBI and DOJ over how the email investigation was to be conducted. While FBI staff pushed to use subpoenas to force witnesses to answer questions and produce evidence, the Justice Department preferred to negotiate with defense lawyers.

“There were times that people in the FBI suggested and wanted to pursue, let’s say, acquiring of evidence through legal process, rather than the Department’s preferred route, which was negotiating consent to access different pieces of evidence,” McCabe said.

The investigators ultimately followed the path preferred by the DOJ.

Lisa Page, an FBI counsel who worked on the email investigation, described similar tensions during two days of testimony in July 2018 detailed for the first time by the Epoch Times on Jan. 11.

That article maybe isn't the best example of it. I shouldn't do this from my phone.

Either way, it doesn't matter because McCabe is selling Comey up the river, due to how crooked a cop Comey is. Drafting an exoneration letter months ahead of the investigation end, and before you interview the suspect... lol.

Sure:
“Any investigator or prosecutor who doesn’t have a sense, after nearly a year of investigation, where their case is likely headed, is incompetent. Prosecutors routinely begin drafting indictments before an investigation is finished if it looks likely to end up there, and competent ones also begin thinking how to end investigations that seem likely to end without charges,” Comey explained in "A Higher Loyalty," which hit the shelves Tuesday. “In neither case are minds closed to a different outcome if subsequent evidence dictates, but competent people think ahead.”

__________________I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?

Did you think that if they recommended charges, that she wouldn't have won at all?

It didn't matter if the FBI recommended charges or not. Lynch was not going to prosecute Clinton either way.

Comey though that his best option was to not recommend prosecution but lay out exactly how unethical and in his mind almost criminal Clinton's private server scheme was. Therefore if Clinton was elected he could say that he didn't recommend prosecution. If Trump were elected he could say that he pointed out how bad Clinton's behavior was. He tried to hedge and ended up losing because no one, who was not completely irrational due to tribalism, believed that Clinton's behavior was in fact not criminal. People had been successfully prosecuted for much much less.

It didn't matter if the FBI recommended charges or not. Lynch was not going to prosecute Clinton either way.

Comey though that his best option was to not recommend prosecution but lay out exactly how unethical and in his mind almost criminal Clinton's private server scheme was. Therefore if Clinton was elected he could say that he didn't recommend prosecution. If Trump were elected he could say that he pointed out how bad Clinton's behavior was. He tried to hedge and ended up losing because no one, who was not completely irrational due to tribalism, believed that Clinton's behavior was in fact not criminal. People had been successfully prosecuted for much much less.

Sounds like a lot of speculation on your part, honestly.

__________________I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?

It is the only explanation that fits the behavior and known facts. I am sorry that you mistakenly believe that Comey is a man of integrity and honor. You don't get to the top of the FBI if you have either of those values.

It is the only explanation that fits the behavior and known facts. I am sorry that you mistakenly believe that Comey is a man of integrity and honor. You don't get to the top of the FBI if you have either of those values.

No, it isn't. I just gave you Comey's own words on the matter.

I have no reason to believe that Comey isn't. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt unless and until I see evidence to the contrary. And you are clearly biased and highly jaded toward the FBI anyway (for whatever reason).

__________________I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?